The Instigator
Tweka
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
WillRiley
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

God has free will.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Tweka
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,702 times Debate No: 67702
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

Tweka

Con

In this debate we are assuming that God does exist.

The BoP is on Pro.

72 hours to argue.
10,000 characters.
No forfeit.
No Trolling.
No Insults.
No semantics.
The voting style is open to anyone.
This will be a four rounds of debate.

First round is for PRO's ARGUMENT.
Second round is for REBUTTALS or NEW ARGUMENT.
Third round is for CON's REBUTTAL AND PRO'S CONCLUSION.
Fourth round is for my CONCLUSION.

My opponent shall type "no round as agreed" in the fourth round since he/she has the burden and is going first. If he/she posts some arguments/ rebuttals in his last round he will result in SEVEN-POINT LOSS.NO NEW ARGUMENTS in the conclusions area.

By accepting this debate my opponent agrees to stick to the rules that I have mentioned above. If he/she violates the rules as shown above, she/he will lose this debate.

Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
https://www.google.com...

We will be focusing on the three attributes of God only.

Attributes of God: Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent and Omniscient .

Omnipotent - God is all powerful, sovereign.

Omniscience - God is all knowing all the time.

Omnibenevolence- All loving.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

has: possess, own, or hold.
https://www.google.com...

Note: I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you wish to do it, then please let me know in the comments. If you accept without my acknowledgement, you have forfeited the debate.
WillRiley

Pro

Thank you for the interesting topic. I hope this will be a productive and civil exchange. During the course of this debate, I will attempt to prove that God (Who we are assuming exists for the sake of this debate.) does indeed have free will.
Arguments
According to your definitions of God and free will, it is already apparent that God has free will.


Omnipotent - God is all powerful, sovereign.

Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Being that you have not defined the word fate, I will take the liberty of doing so myself. I trust you will agree with the following definition.


Fate- The development of events outside a person’s control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power. [1]

Obviously, nothing is outside the control of God, being that he is Omnipotent. Also, it can not come from a supernatural power, being that God is the supernatural power.

A being with unlimited power would, of course, be able to do anything that it wanted. Therefore, God has the power to act without the constraint, not only of necessity or fate, but of everything.

Back to you Con.

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Tweka

Con

Thanks WillRiley for accepting this debate. I will do some rebuttals and introduce some condition that God has no free will due to his properties that he possesses.

=God can only do good (positive) things.

=God can only have knowledge which is good (positive).

=God is very powerful since in this debate he exists.

1. Which means every act that God do must be good in terms.

- God allows sufferings.

-God does not have the negative knowledge since he is all-loving.

- God creates human and then creates water for human to survive.

We can see that in both ways that God has no choice (free will)
.
--If god did not create water, then human can"t survive.

+ God has no choice but to create water in order to let human survive.

+If HE does not do that, then mankind can"t survive.

HE has no choice but to do that.

2. How does a creator of free will have free will?

= An omniscient being cannot have free will because it is predestined by its own knowledge of its future actions.

=An omnibenevolent God cannot have free will because there is only one perfect course of action, which God, being perfectly good, must follow.

= God cannot sin.

= Which means something that he cannot do.

= If god gives us free will, then he cannot have free will.

Rebuttals:
+Obviously, nothing is outside the control of God, being that he is Omnipotent. Also, it can not come from a supernatural power, being that God is the supernatural power. +

Which means sufferings are also in God's control. Then, he is no longer God because HE allows sufferings.

+A being with unlimited power would, of course, be able to do anything that it wanted. Therefore, God has the power to act without the constraint, not only of necessity or fate, but of everything.+

There is something that God, therefore HE is not powerful.
WillRiley

Pro

I would like to point out that my opponent has contradicted his own definitions of God many times. In this round, I will be pointing out such contradictions.

=God can only have knowledge which is good (positive).

False. Even according to your definition-

Omniscience - God is all knowing all the time.
God knows everything, including bad things.



- God creates human and then creates water for human to survive.

We can see that in both ways that God has no choice (free will)
.
--If god did not create water, then human can"t survive.

+ God has no choice but to create water in order to let human survive.

+If HE does not do that, then mankind can"t survive.

HE has no choice but to do that.

According to the Book of Genesis, God created water before creating mankind.


=An omnibenevolent God cannot have free will because there is only one perfect course of action, which God, being perfectly good, must follow.

God is all powerful, and invented perfection. Therefore, may decide what is perfect, or change what is considered perfect based on his own choices.


Which means sufferings are also in God's control. Then, he is no longer God because HE allows sufferings.

You defined God, not me. You are only arguing with your own definition.


There is something that God, therefore HE is not powerful.

While the meaning is not clear here, it is apparenty you are again arguing with your own definition-

Omnipotent - God is all powerful, sovereign.

Arguments

Obviously, when you are all powerful, you can do anything, even change aspects of yourself. And Ominpotent being has the ablity to make itself not ominbenevolent or omniscient. Omnipotence, in and of itself, allows you to do anything. Anything.
Ominpotence would allow God to forgo any logic, even being able to change anything about logic to fit his own design.
Debate Round No. 2
Tweka

Con

Pro is debating a Truism
Truism:

http://uofadebate.files.wordpress.com...

Now look at my case. We shall ignore his case.
1. We are arguing that this debate to show that God has free will while being Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent. My opponent is trying to change God"s properties; therefore he is no longer God and does not have free will. When he is not God, then he has free will. This is what my opponent trying to say. Which means when he is God he has no free will. When the entity has three aspects then he is God. When he is without those, then he is no longer God. Like a car without tyres. Would you still consider that as a car? It is quite funny.

2. If we say that God has existed which means Evil has also existed. Since my opponent is using the Holy Bible then fine. Maybe I am too rushed and mistake human first then water. Sorry for the confusion.

3. The definition of free will implies ability.
Everything stands in contradiction exists.
Proton exists, so does electron.
Since my opponent admits that God is having positive property without many objections. Then, what is the being with negative property? That is EVIL.
Truth exists, so does lie.
Up exists, so does down.
Throughout this we can or we must admit that there is an opposite being or thing.
If I am suffering now, why doesn"t god save me? Is he malevolent? No, he existed. Does he have free will? He is so powerful. So, what is preventing god from saving me? That would be evil.
As my opponent admits, God is having positive property and Evil is having negative. What is the reason God does not destroy Evil? Evil is as powerful as god? Evil is more powerful than God? God is more powerful than Evil?
If evil is as powerful as God, since God is Omnipotent then its power is infinity.
Infinity (God) - Infinity (Evil) =0
Which means if God applies all its power then while evil is also doing the same. Then, nothing happens because they cancel out each other evenly.
God applies infinity force to move this object to right and then Evil applies infinity force to move this object to left. Then it does not move. That said, God has no ability to do what it wants. Therefore no free will.
Ability : possession of the means or skill to do something

https://www.google.com...

4. Did God create free will? How then does it itself have free will? If God created free will then God had no choice in doing so. It must have been predestined to create it. But what created that predestination? God couldn't have created free will; and as God is the ultimate creator, if it didn't create free will then it means that free will doesn't exist, for itself or anything else.

5. God is moral.
Which means he cannot do something bad.
Let this be the case.
I am going to die.
1. God let me die. (This won"t happen because he is morally good)
2. God saves me. (This might happen)
We see that the choice of god is fixed because he can only have one option not the other. Did god choose to do that hence no free will for God"
Now comes to number two? If evil is trying to drag me to hell and God is trying to save me. Then nothing happens. Note God is powerful and has the ability to save human. God cannot have the ability why so? First I am not saved. Second the existence of evil cancels out God"s Force. In other words, God has no ability because nothing happens.

6. If God is all knowing then he knows what he is going to in the incoming time. This means this has violated free will. Yes God exists, but he does not have free will. I am going to let Jesus exists in the future. It happens.

7. When people say that God has free will, they must also mean that God is imperfect. If God is not perfect then it becomes possible for God to choose a less-than-perfect action. If God is not imperfect, then, it is impossible for god to perform imperfect actions. Therefore God has no free will.
WillRiley

Pro

Apparenty my opponent could not refute my arguments and chose to ignore my case.
However, I will say again that God's omnipotence allows his power to surpass human logic. Remember, I didn't define God as omnipotent, you did. Therefore, anything is possible with God, even making it where he is not God.
The point is, God has free will regardless of any argument you can make due to the fact that God can do anything.
I choose to end my round here due to Con's ignoring of my argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Tweka

Con

+++++++++++++++++
Conclusion:
+++++++++++++++++

1. Obviously, in this debate, Pro did not refute whatever I say in the previous round. Pro is going with his own definition of God that is Omnipotence. He says that an Omnipotence being can do anything yes I must admit that. But not a being with Omnipotence, Omni benevolence and Omniscience. I will illustrate this example in order to clear the confusion of the readers.

God
=Omni benevolence
=Omnipotence
=Omniscience

Evil
=Omnipotence
=Omniscience (Possibly)
=Malevolence

Being X or whatever you want to call that (Not God or Evil)
= Omnipotence

Pro is claiming that being X has free will because it can do anything. Yes. But do you think being X is really God? As I have stated in my earlier round that God cannot sin since he is Omnibenevolent. Yes, what I say is true and valid because my opponent also admits that. He has no objection. He is claiming that the being X has free will. He also drops that God does not have free will because he has only one choice. He says that Omnipotent being can drop his attributes to become being X and have free will. Let"s us look at this further. Carbon Dioxide- CO2. Oxygen-O2 Carbon-C He is trying to ask carbon dioxide to release its Oxygen then it will become free. So, only C is left. He is trying to say that C is carbon dioxide. No, that is carbon. He is trying to falsely equivocate whatever Omnipotent being is God.

2. I have explained that God cannot have free will because free will is described as the ability to act in one"s freedom because God is powerful. Unfortunately, my opponent has no refuted the possibility that God was prevented by evil to do something. Since he also admits the Holy Bible is true, which means evil also exists. We can see that in this debate, the only reference that we use is Holy Bible but not any other books.

3. I have, again, proven that the creator (God) of free will did not have free will. If HE has given any human free will which means the man can act bad or good. He has no control over. HE is also predestined by its own knowledge of its future actions. Which means God has no free will because of he knows what HE will do in the future. If he does not do it, then he will be wrong.

4. Pro says that I have dropped his case and remains un-rebutted. Is that true? No, because whatever Con is irrelevant to the debate. It is no value for me to attack that. A few mistakes that I make are that misplace the order of the position of Creation in the Genesis. In the beginning, I define God as Omnipotence, Omni benevolence and Omniscience. I did not define him as Omnipotence alone.

5. Free will: The ability to do something". If God has free will, then he can do it. If God has no free will then he cannot do it. In my parts, God has no power to act because of the cancellation of power. Just to remind the readers that Evils are Angels before. That said, they are also powerful and almost same as God.

6. Pro is also debating truism. This means he is having all the advantages and I was set in a bad position.

Onto the voters now, we, on the whole, have seen that Pro is dropping whatever I say in my rounds. He is trying to change the properties of God in order to let the free will works. But, after all, the being is no longer God. He has not met with his burden of proof to show that God really has free will to do something which I specifically ask. I thank the readers and voters who really read this debate. Please vote as fairly as possible. Good Evening and have a nice year.
WillRiley

Pro

No round as agreed.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Valar_Dohaeris 2 years ago
Valar_Dohaeris
this single point gives con the debate as it shows there is at least one definition (even if it can be altered) that god cannot do. Pro never really contested this other than saying God can change it , but never explains that he is still limited to not doing said thing.

spelling to pro as some noticeable errors come out from con. Rest is tied.
Posted by Valar_Dohaeris 2 years ago
Valar_Dohaeris
Pro had a case until he dropped his final round, and just stated con ignored his points. Pro invokes the Euthphoria lemonade in a attempt to say whatever god commands is good, and whatever god commands is bad. I don't really see how that factors into free will. The debate is basically about whether God can do whatever he wants, Pro just asserts that god can do whatever he wants because whatever he wants is good or bad and can change. That is an assertion not contention. One that is not backed. Whether what god commands is good or bad, is not a factor in if he can do whatever he wants. AS pro being the affirmative, he has to build a case to show that God has free will, which he did not. The only thing pro noted that was a point to his case was that God created the universe so he can do anything. Because God created the universe does not mean he can do anything. He could create the universe and assign humans free will without intervention. Basically fro PRO being PRO he did not hold up the affirmative side of the debate and left a lot of things not answered.

So where I am is that PRos points are as follows

God created everything so he can do anything ( faulty for the free wills statement i made)
Whatever God says is good is good and whatever he says is bad is bad (invalid , he has the BOP)

Con at this point merely has to provide doubt which he does. Most of his arguments miss the mark but he had one that stuck around and actually negated pros case. That is Gods issue of sin. I am assuming this is the Christian God because it was never properly defined, but God cannot sin (by his own definition). Pro invokes the dilemma in a attempt to answer this but it fails to do so. If God cannot sin, and sin is defined by God. God can change his mind on what sin is sure, but there will always be a negative thing that god cannot do, even if it is a definition.

If sin = x , and God cannot do x, changing sin to y still negates his free will to do y
Posted by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
It is okay. Maybe you have misread.
Posted by Hakoda 2 years ago
Hakoda
Oh, I apologize for my inconvenience.
Posted by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Please read the first line in the first round. In this debate we are assuming that God does exist.
Posted by Hakoda 2 years ago
Hakoda
You said your assuming God doesn't exist which means you said there is no God.
Posted by IvenMartin 2 years ago
IvenMartin
I'm confused.
Posted by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Your debate topic is God has free will yet the rules state that your assuming there is no God. When and where did I say it?
Posted by Hakoda 2 years ago
Hakoda
Yes I read your first line. I don't even know why u told me to do it sense I even quoted that line in my response to you.
Posted by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Challenge accepted. I will send it to him in a week's time.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
TwekaWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a hard debate to evaluate. I think the debaters often were talking past each other. Pro's primary argument was to say god is omnipotent so he must have free will (assuming free will exists). But that isn't all god is claimed to be, omnibenevolent, omniscient. If god is all good, he can only do good. If he is all knowing, he cannot change his future actions. This forces god's hand in certain choices. (frankly this should be a clue that something is wrong with the god model) I think Con could've argued this point better. He should've made is primary argument around it. He does point this out. Pro never adequately refutes it. So I give Con a slight edge in the argument section.
Vote Placed by JackFritschy 2 years ago
JackFritschy
TwekaWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con arguments did not show that god didn't have free will, but tried to disprove god's existence.
Vote Placed by Valar_Dohaeris 2 years ago
Valar_Dohaeris
TwekaWillRileyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: comments